SECDEF tells NATO ministers they need to increase spending

[FireNexus]

The point of NATO post-Cold War is to make it so nobody ever bothers to fight in places that are economically important.

You do realize that this sounds like eternal oppression of the weaker? "We strong and rich nations can fight you at any time, but don't dare you!"

The theory can allow for eternal oppression of the weaker, but doesn't require it to work. It's not as if NATO makes the west more able to stomp on developing nations than they were without it. In fact, NATO in the absence of an enemy makes us less likely to start rolling the tanks into countries.

If Singapore decided to fight a total war against France, assuming both started with equivalent military capabilities, Singapore would die. Same goes for Turkey or Mexico. Or even Canada.The point of NATO is so a more well-matched country doesn't decide to attack. China or Russia might be able to conquer France, though. NATO assures that they don't.

China is actually a great example of how NATO actually helps weaker non-NATO members. Because the relative global stability (and total stability among the Great Powers) that an alliance like NATO enforces allowed China a steady market it could access to rapidly industrialize. If nation states had oscillated between war and rebuilding every twenty-five years, they wouldn't be able to reliably afford what China is selling. Not able to support investment that China could attract. A world with massive conflicts among the great powers would likely involve a china that is still one of the poorest countries on earth, and/or that had been carved up by colonizers and the pieces changed hands repeatedly. You know, like China was before.

Peace among the wealthiest countries doesn't ensure total worldwide peace, and in some places it has done the opposite. But the richest countries in the world all in a 20-year cycle of war and rebuilding that they're forever trying to pay for is at least as bad for the kind of countries that get oppressed, and probably a lot worse. The only people who would gain from NATO collapsing are those with interest in oppressing some of the countries weaker than they are that are smaller NATO members but too weak to be able to risk fighting the larger ones. So, Russia or maybe Turkey. Which, I get that my country isn't the best place on Earth, but arguments that talk about "oppression" where the only net oppression is authoritarian strong men's ability to expand their sphere of influence are not super compelling.

Any effort to create stability by the powerful could in theory be used to oppress the weak. But if you're arguing that the powerful are more likely to fight wars of aggression designed to oppress the weak than they were in the pre-Cold War period, you're entirely full of shit. Because the rich have been fucking with the poor forever, and the kinds of protections NATO offers the rich only really matter against countries that are already relatively so.

[FireNexus]

Also, Turkey would only benefit from NATO collapse in the absence of Russia. They're one of those weaker countries who are protected EC from oppression by NATO.

[K. A. Pital]

But if you're arguing that the powerful are more likely to fight wars of aggression designed to oppress the weak than they were in the pre-Cold War period, you're entirely full of shit.

I am not saying they are "more likely" to fight in such wars because a total war has been getting costlier (thanks to proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction, quite ironically) ever since nuclear weapons were developed. Total war between nuclear states has become a very marginal risk.

However, casual invasions of weaker non-nuclear states by powerful nations remain a huge problem.

Simon is right that more wars between imperialist centers is not, itself, a solution to this. But neither is NATO, as practice has shown.

[Simon_Jester]

Doesn't this suggest, then, that the problem exists in an entirely different dimension than that of "wars versus alliances between powerful countries?"

And that maybe there's no point in randomly attacking an alliance that secures peace in Europe as "a tool of imperialism," when in fact it serves no such purpose because it doesn't serve as such a tool?

I mean, this is basic logic. X and anti-X and all the points on the spectrum in between cannot ALL be tools of imperialist oppression at the same time. To claim that they are destroys one's own credibility as a logical thinker/speaker, and makes it appear that one is just shouting about people one doesn't like.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, sorry, but did you miss lots of barely-justified military action, some of it was not even in Europe, by NATO?

I don't understand how the idea that if there's just one pole of power (NATO), which of course never fights itself (also only true as long as the underlying tensions between the composing powers are low and very likely resolved at the expense of someone else), but bosses everyone around, is making your point stronger. It is not.

NATO's last involvement in the Libyan Civil War was a magnificent example of how a bunch of powerful states tried to strong-arm even their less cooperative neighbors into supporting this adventure - the weaker small states, of course, barely participated and got flak for this. But why? They entered NATO to defend themselves (in case of Eastern European nations), not participate in US or French or Brisith war games in the Middle East.

Therefore I doubt that you have seriously thought your reply through this time. The last time NATO could be thought of as doing something relevant to peace in Europe was the Yugoslavian intervention. Which, by the way, is not an example I'd be rushing to raise when talking about existential justification of a bloc that, for a second, is what - over 70% of world's military spending?

[Simon_Jester]

The point is simple.

In the presence of a massive allied bloc, we see imperialism.

In the absence of a massive allied bloc, we still see imperialism.

There is no obvious evidence that more imperialism results from the presence of the allied bloc than from its absence. With NATO being a thing that exists, Libya wound up getting its dictatorship overthrown by a NATO-backed coalition of rebels. Which you can call imperialism. At the same time, if NATO did not exist, maybe we would instead be seeing imperialism in, for example, Poland or Latvia. There was plenty of imperialism before NATO existed, there is no reason to think imperialism depends upon NATO for survival.

The sensible conclusion is that NATO is not an imperialist tool, or is no more of an imperialist tool than literally every other imaginable state of international law and relations, including total anarchy. Therefore it is nonsensical to attack NATO for being an imperialist tool.
_________________________

Imagine a man who is offered a red shirt, which he rejects as being 'the wrong color.' When offered a blue shirt, he does the same. A green shirt, likewise. Eventually he is offered shirts in every color of the rainbow, all of which are condemned.

This man now seems like a fool, because to criticize all possible choices is merely a more time-wasting version of saying "I do not have a relevant opinion, I just hate everything."

I would not want to see you fall into a similar position where every conceivable international institution or lack thereof becomes "an imperialist tool." He who criticizes everything, indiscriminately, has no power to deliver meaningful criticism of anything.

[FireNexus]

Wait, sorry, but did you miss lots of barely-justified military action, some of it was not even in Europe, by NATO?

Which is it? Is NATO the cause of imperialism, or merely not a solution to it? You started out by saying that NATO is a mechanism for permanently keeping the weak weak. You conceded that the rich nations fighting one another (preventing which is the purpose of NATO post-Cold War) wouldn't solve that problem then proceeded to sidestep the issue of there being a shitload less of that kind of behavior than there used to be.

I don't understand how the idea that if there's just one pole of power (NATO), which of course never fights itself (also only true as long as the underlying tensions between the composing powers are low and very likely resolved at the expense of someone else), but bosses everyone around, is making your point stronger. It is not.

The point is that those powers not fighting each other is a pretty big accomplishment. The contention that specific powerful weapons are what suddenly made rationalists out of everyone, and caused them to cease taking the already wholly irrational step of engaging in total war, is pretty spurious. Total war was already plenty costly the last time we engaged in it, and it didn't stop us.

In fact, that NATO alliance where attacking one is considered an attack on all is probably fairly important to the avoidance of more limited nuclear exchanges. Because the existence of something like NATO makes it way too likey that everybody starts shooting. Turns it from a cowboy duel into a radioactive Mexican standoff.

That "it never fights itself" thing is pretty important, since it represents 70% of the worldwide military might. Because if there wasn't a ban on it fighting itself, history has shown that it would be quite happy to do so. With predictably ahitty results for everyone.

NATO's last involvement in the Libyan Civil War was a magnificent example of how a bunch of powerful states tried to strong-arm even their less cooperative neighbors into supporting this adventure - the weaker small states, of course, barely participated and got flak for this. But why? They entered NATO to defend themselves (in case of Eastern European nations), not participate in US or French or Brisith war games in the Middle East.

An example of unjustifiable military action that should never have occurred. It's too bad we didn't agree that NATO isn't the United Federation of Planets, and merely claimed that it makes things more stable in the late/post-Cold War period than they had been prior to the Second World War.

Oh wait, we did. But you're oscillating your point from "evil imperialists" to "well it doesn't totally solve the problem" so quickly that I question whether you realize that both the examples of regrettable NATO adventurism and the idea that it is an ultimately stabilizing force that benefits even most of the people not residing in member countries are perfectly able to coexist.

Therefore I doubt that you have seriously thought your reply through this time. The last time NATO could be thought of as doing something relevant to peace in Europe was the Yugoslavian intervention. Which, by the way, is not an example I'd be rushing to raise when talking about existential justification of a bloc that, for a second, is what - over 70% of world's military spending?

Your point keeps changing. And to the extent that it's consistent at all it is both a black/white fallacy and begging a question that has been repeatedly addressed. Moreover, you keep ignoring the contention that all the alliance actually needs to do is exist by arguing against the idea that NATO is a perfect solution to all of the world's instability. An idea nobody ever forwarded.

[Ralin]

So, I reiterate: Wouldn't you say that about most anything that involves those countries remaining wealthy, powerful and not being destroyed in their current political and economic forms?

[K. A. Pital]

Which is it? Is NATO the cause of imperialism, or merely not a solution to it? You started out by saying that NATO is a mechanism for permanently keeping the weak weak.

I started by saying that your statement about NATO preventing rich nations from fighting each other could be understood that way. After all, if imperialism does not vanish after powerful nations stop fighting each other, it is a logical conclusion that its blade should be pointed outwards - because fighting and war still occur, right? So my statement is not contradicting my later statements.

The contention that specific powerful weapons are what suddenly made rationalists out of everyone, and caused them to cease taking the already wholly irrational step of engaging in total war, is pretty spurious.

Is it now? First of all, not all instance of total war are irrational. The US involvement in total war with Japan was not irrational. The Japanese Empire was destroyed and the US expanded its influence in Asia very rapidly, becoming a true superpower in the aftermath (but, of course, ran into the USSR - that's another story). In fact, the disparity in military capability between Japan and the US was so huge that Japanese entered a fight they were bound to lose (which many understood, but kept going). So what changed in the meantime? It is not like there's no underlying economic / political interest that pushed wars before. The logical conclusion is that many big nations are armed with sizeable nuclear or other WMD arsenals, which makes total war exceptionally risky (not like before, when being conventionally outmatched meant losing in a bad way, hence all the gunboat diplomacy). In fact, Iraq's biggest problem was that it had no credible deterrent against its enemies.

In fact, that NATO alliance where attacking one is considered an attack on all is probably fairly important to the avoidance of more limited nuclear exchanges.

Nowadays the greatest probability of a limited nuclear exchange is between India and Pakistan (probably always have been that way since both got nukes). NATO isn't really relevant to this risk, at least now.

I question whether you realize that both the examples of regrettable NATO adventurism and the idea that it is an ultimately stabilizing force that benefits even most of the people not residing in member countries are perfectly able to coexist

So how does NATO benefit "most of the people not residing in member countries"? Let us examine this closely. First of all, any country that has no WMD deterrent and is not on the bestest of terms with some NATO nation (could be just one!), should be prepared for the worst and get such an arsenal as soon as possible. Because NATO can invade at any time if you are a non-nuclear nation. If you are a nuclear nation outside of NATO, you are suddenly facing a juggernaut of nuclear-armed nations, and you have to be prepared. So de-nuclearization is not an option unless you're willing to take on the risk of a future invasion or intervention. Finally, all people who reside in points which NATO deems militarily relevant and starts operations nearby, are going to have to live with an increased risk of war day by day. The mere attempt to build a WMD deterrent can provoke NATO nations into military action - although this is a sovereign right of any nation. Which puts many weak nations into a paradoxical situation: have no deterrent and be always at risk, or try to get one and face an increased risk of NATO assault. None of the above is actually beneficial to non-residents of this NATO elysium.

So, I reiterate: Wouldn't you say that about most anything that involves those countries remaining wealthy, powerful and not being destroyed in their current political and economic forms?

No, I would not. There is plenty of things which are not related to war, and they are outside the scope of discussion. NATO, as a military bloc, is.

[FireNexus]

I started by saying that your statement about NATO preventing rich nations from fighting each other could be understood that way. After all, if imperialism does not vanish after powerful nations stop fighting each other, it is a logical conclusion that its blade should be pointed outwards - because fighting and war still occur, right? So my statement is not contradicting my later statements.

Got it. So you want to have it both ways. I think it's pretty clear that whatever it sounds like, NATO is by no means a tool of oppression any more than any rich nation having a functioning military and a willingness to fuck with others is. If you can't prove the problem is worse with NATO, then your original statement is wholly meaningless. And based on what I know of how the current NATO powers behaved prior to the Second World War (while they were constantly at each other's throats) I'd bet decent money it's better.

Regarding your second statement, I again must point out that nobody ever fucking said that NATO was the perfect cure for rich countries taking advantage of poor countries. Or implied it. Or thought it but didn't express it. I'm not sure who you're debating hat point with, but they aren't in this thread.

Is it now? First of all, not all instance of total war are irrational. The US involvement in total war with Japan was not irrational. The Japanese Empire was destroyed and the US expanded its influence in Asia very rapidly, becoming a true superpower in the aftermath (but, of course, ran into the USSR - that's another story).

Conceded. Total war is not wholly irrational. It's just mostly irrational. And acting as the aggressor in such a war is wholly irrational (which the Japanese and Germans learned the hard way).

So what changed in the meantime?

The organization of states into large scale alliances tied by commerce and mutual nuclear deterrence (mutual being the key word) and the luck that we got out of the Cold War without lighting a nuclear candle.

In fact, globalization is at least as big of a change as nuclear deterrence, and likely to be much more viable long term. If you just don't have the capacity to build electronics at home anymore, you're much less likely to be able to go to war with the country that you buy them from. Because there will be so much pressure to reverse course that you'll be run out of office.

This theory will be tested shortly when Trump tries to slap tariffs on Mexico and China. If he gets thrown out and discredited when iPhones double in price, and we return to status quo, I'll consider my support of globalization vindicated. If he gets elected to a second term, I'll have to reconsider your point.

It is not like there's no underlying economic / political interest that pushed wars before. The logical conclusion is that many big nations are armed with sizeable nuclear or other WMD arsenals, which makes total war exceptionally risky (not like before, when being conventionally outmatched meant losing in a bad way, hence all the gunboat diplomacy). In fact, Iraq's biggest problem was that it had no credible deterrent against its enemies.

Yup. All WMDs. Nothing to do with the majority of the world's military might being in an alliance and developing mutually beneficial commercial ties between the rich countries (and some of the poorer countries, see China again, Korea, Vietnam, etc.) making peaceful resolution both more possible and more desirable.

Nowadays the greatest probability of a limited nuclear exchange is between India and Pakistan (probably always have been that way since both got nukes). NATO isn't really relevant to this risk, at least now.

So you're saying that the two nuclear armed countries which have a history of bloody rivalry and which are both uninvolved in the type of Alliance the quote you're responding to says reduces the risk of limited nuclear conflict are at risk of a limited nuclear conflict? BALDERDASH!

Come the fuck on, man. At least try not to prove my point for me...

So how does NATO benefit "most of the people not residing in member countries"?

See China, India, post-Cold war Vietnam (NATO certainly didn't benefit Vietnam during the Cold War, but I am specifically referring to the post-Cold War period), post-Cold War South Korea.

NATO keeps most of the world, the places that buy the kind of products poor countries can produce, stable enough to infuse them with the cash to industrialize.

Let us examine this closely. First of all, any country that has no WMD deterrent and is not on the bestest of terms with some NATO nation (could be just one!), should be prepared for the worst and get such an arsenal as soon as possible. Because NATO can invade at any time if you are a non-nuclear nation. If you are a nuclear nation outside of NATO, you are suddenly facing a juggernaut of nuclear-armed nations, and you have to be prepared. So de-nuclearization is not an option unless you're willing to take on the risk of a future invasion or intervention. Finally, all people who reside in points which NATO deems militarily relevant and starts operations nearby, are going to have to live with an increased risk of war day by day. The mere attempt to build a WMD deterrent can provoke NATO nations into military action - although this is a sovereign right of any nation. Which puts many weak nations into a paradoxical situation: have no deterrent and be always at risk, or try to get one and face an increased risk of NATO assault. None of the above is actually beneficial to non-residents of this NATO elysium.

And the alternative is a world in which the richest countries are constantly grinding their industrial capacity to dust, and still fucking with the poorer countries at least as much or more. Any or all of the problems you mention would exist with nuclear armed alliances of the more limited type present in the Cold War and prior, and there would be more destabilizing wars.

And considering what happened in the Cold War, you would likely see a lot more of the proxy war bullshit pulled by both NATO and the Soviet bloc post-War. So the existence of a single dominant super-Alliance is really no worse and actually demonstrably better. Unless you happen to be philosophically opposed to the basic building blocks of their social structures, in which case you might make any kind of shitty, inconsistent argument in order to delegitimize the very measured claims made of the benefits of such an organization.

You keep saying you're arguing against NATO, but really you're using NATO to argue against the ability of wealthy countries to militarize entirely. I get it, you don't like the West. And you further dislike the West as a unified bloc. But your rambling argument here tried to imply one thing that is demonstrably false, then switched gears to a strawman argument about NATO not being the solution to a problem nobody claimed it solved, then tried to use the consequences of there being rich and poor countries in a nuclear-armed world as an argument against NATO. Maybe stay out of an argument until you have a consistent point you're able to stick with. At least have the decency to fucking admit when you change gears.

[Thanas]

As expected, Merkel has told Trump to get off:

the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, made it clear she would not be bullied by the US over defence spending. She said Germany had made a promise to increase defence over the next decade and would fulfil that commitment rather than be forced into the faster rises that Trump is looking for.

Merkel said the focus on defence spending could be misleading. Even if Germany was to spend more, there was not the military capacity available to invest in. She added that Germany saw spending on development in countries in Africa and elsewhere as vital to security as military spending.[...], Pence was scheduled to hold bilateral talks with Merkel and also with the leaders of Ukraine and the Baltic states.

Merkel made the case for more multilateralism rather than a retreat into “parochialism” because of the dangers posed by “no fixed world order”.

With Pence in the room, she avoided direct references to Trump even though many of her comments during her speech and in a question-and-answer session afterwards were aimed at him.

Asked about attacks on the media, Merkel said: “Freedom of the press is a pillar of democracy.”

[K. A. Pital]

I think it's pretty clear that whatever it sounds like, NATO is by no means a tool of oppression any more than any rich nation having a functioning military and a willingness to fuck with others is. If you can't prove the problem is worse with NATO, then your original statement is wholly meaningless. And based on what I know of how the current NATO powers behaved prior to the Second World War (while they were constantly at each other's throats) I'd bet decent money it's better.

I think you do understand my argument, you just want to make a strawman out of it so that it could be better knocked down.

Let's take several examples, some from a time where there was rivalry between the blocs, and another from a different time when there is just one dominant bloc.

First, Vietnam. By kicking out the French they invited Americans on their heads - but eventually, the US lost that war. There was someone else willing to pour tanks, raw material and advisors into the nation. So Vietnam won - a small country against the biggest military might on Earth. Something we might not soon, or ever, see repeated.

Second, Iraq. There were some voices against the war, but nobody was resolute enough to put anything on the line for Iraq. France and Germany voiced discontent, Russia was dead against but also did not want to risk anything. There was no one to run to - Iraq was invaded in an atmosphere of total NATO dominance, with no serious armed detractors who could help the invaded nation to pose a challenge.

The problem that I am talking about, one of the union of WMD-armed industrialized nations stomping on lesser ones with them having little or no recourse, is not going away because you unite all such nations into one bloc, but it is actually becoming worse by some metrics. There is only total despair if you are on the receiving end of the attack in such a case, and nobody to run to. Over the decades, powerful nations managed to unite in such a way that the entire "developing" world is a potential warzone - first you designate some country a "pariah state" and then you do what you like with it. The likelihood of war between rich nations subsided, but the likelihood of being fucked over by them? Not by much.

NATO keeps most of the world, the places that buy the kind of products poor countries can produce, stable enough to infuse them with the cash to industrialize.

That is a good argument. But it is related to economy alone. Once you have a gigantic economy like China or India, who can also consume the products of poorer countries (and in this century, they are starting and they will) - the utility of NATO in that regard rapidly decreases.

The argument also suffers from a certain inherent weakness ("without the aristocracy, who would consume the products of the craftsmen? workshops would go bust!")...

Nothing to do with the majority of the world's military might being in an alliance and developing mutually beneficial commercial ties between the rich countries (and some of the poorer countries, see China again, Korea, Vietnam, etc.) making peaceful resolution both more possible and more desirable.

Not nothing, but little to do with it. If there were no WMDs, the alliance would crack much sooner, as war would be less risky and taking chances against a conventionally outmatched enemy, or even taking chances due to sheer miscalculation (Hitler massively overestimated the industrial potential of the Reich) - is going to happen again. Without the huge risk posed by WMDs, war would be a lot more common and alliances would be a lot more fragile.

[FireNexus]

I think you do understand my argument, you just want to make a strawman out of it so that it could be better knocked down.

Yup. I'm the one strawmanning your argument. The one you change every time it's challenged. The one you allude to until it gets challenged. The one where you refuse to acknowledge that you flat out responded to claims by multiple people by disputing an argument they never made.

Let's take several examples, some from a time where there was rivalry between the blocs, and another from a different time when there is just one dominant bloc.

The first example doesn't address my argument at all, because I've been very clear that the unambiguous stabilizing effect of NATO is post Cold War. The Cold War era Saw the blocs regularly fighting proxy wars to avoid direct conflict. It was an extension of the alliance system of the 19th and 20th centuries.

First, Vietnam.

Was fucked by competing alliances over 150 years. Has had rapid economic improvement since that conflict ended. Vietnam benefits greatly under the single super-alliance system. Because under the colonial system it got directly raped and pillaged. Under the competing superpowers system it became the ground for a proxy war that raped and pillaged it further to the point of it having its very own migration crisis.

Under the single superpower it has rapidly improved people's lives.i was very specific about the conditions that were beneficial. By pointing out how badly Vietnam fared under the prior systems, you once again make my point for me. Thanks.

Second, Iraq. There were some voices against the war, but nobody was resolute enough to put anything on the line for Iraq. France and Germany voiced discontent, Russia was dead against but also did not want to risk anything. There was no one to run to - Iraq was invaded in an atmosphere of total NATO dominance, with no serious armed detractors who could help the invaded nation to pose a challenge.

So... Iraq is an example of why the single superpower alliance system is bad because it didn't become a proxy war like Vietnam or Korea or most of Central America.

You won't find me defending the Iraqi invasion. Or most of the policy in the Middle East in the NATO period. But it is a perfect example of a place that was going to be badly unstable no matter what the geopolitics. It's got a shy hand of one very valuable natural resource and not much else. Countries in the Middle East are all economies which have difficulty diversifying, and it makes them inherently unstable.

But more than that, if you think that the involvement of an additional great power on the opposite side of Iraq would have improved the outcome, that...aybe you're saying it never would have happened with a multiple alliance system, but you can't be dumb enough to think shit like that wouldn't happen, just with an additional wrinkle that fuels the fire even more.

The problem that I am talking about, one of the union of WMD-armed industrialized nations stomping on lesser ones with them having little or no recourse, is not going away because you unite all such nations into one bloc, but it is actually becoming worse by some metrics.

But not, again, the metric of the number of people killed in warfare per capita. Or the number of people among the global poor. Or any metric you can actually, you know, measure. But it certainly feels worse if you have a certain philosophical position.

There is only total despair if you are on the receiving end of the attack in such a case, and nobody to run to. Over the decades, powerful nations managed to unite in such a way that the entire "developing" world is a potential warzone - first you designate some country a "pariah state" and then you do what you like with it. The likelihood of war between rich nations subsided, but the likelihood of being fucked over by them? Not by much.

Oh bullshit. This is a detailed report on the number of war deaths since 1400: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/

The 20th century is probably when it starts to be useful data. Funny thing about the period after 1990, even with the middle eastern fuckery.

Unless you're calculating "likelihood of being fucked over by them" by "whether some guy who happens to believe the West is wrong no matter what they do, and happy to change his argument depending on how full of shit everyone else realizes he actually is, believes they have a higher chance of being fucked over" and not "whether they actually get fucked over at a higher rate by real measures".

It's cool, though. I look forward to you explaining that you never actually made the argument that the likelihood of being fucked over by the great powers is increased and accusing me of strawmanning you in reply. Your goalposts are basically on wheels.

That is a good argument. But it is related to economy alone. Once you have a gigantic economy like China or India, who can also consume the products of poorer countries (and in this century, they are starting and they will) - the utility of NATO in that regard rapidly decreases.

The argument is that NATO, by keeping major economies from fighting, increases economic power, which further reduces the likelihood of major economies fighting. The only way the utility of NATO decreases at all for this purpose is if enough of those new large economies develop tense relationships with NATO form a bloc of their own that can actually challenge it, and we get back to proxy wars which risk developing into full-scale global nuclear war.

And frankly, I'm being generous by assuming that your statement "But it is related to the economy alone" isn't a contention that the economic benefits of the bloc aren't related to its broader geopolitical stabilizing effect.

The argument also suffers from a certain inherent weakness ("without the aristocracy, who would consume the products of the craftsmen? workshops would go bust!")...

Only if you're ideologically predisposed to see all of history at all zoom levels as a zero-sum continuation of one guy's interpretation of 19th-century class struggle where the rich entities are all trying to keep down the poor just because they're poor.

Not nothing, but little to do with it. If there were no WMDs, the alliance would crack much sooner, as war would be less risky and taking chances against a conventionally outmatched enemy, or even taking chances due to sheer miscalculation (Hitler massively overestimated the industrial potential of the Reich) - is going to happen again. Without the huge risk posed by WMDs, war would be a lot more common and alliances would be a lot more fragile.

Without a null case, there's really no way to be sure, is there? It would certainly be necessary for that to be true in order to justify your argument, such as you have one. And there is some truth to the fact that nuclear deterrence is a major component of the alliance that has a pro-stability effect.

But just two nuclear-armed blocs in a game of deterrence resulted in higher combat casualties than we experience currently and at least two separate instances where either momentarily-heightened tensions or normal tensions combined with incompetence nearly broke nuclear deterrence (along with the world).

If there were three or more rival blocs of equal strength all armed with nukes, I have no doubt we'd be debating the relative merits of the smoking irradiated crater method of enforcing geopolitical stability. That there hasn't been a near-nuclear war since the fall of the Soviet Union is a strong argument for the single superpower bloc stability theory.

[K. A. Pital]

The first example doesn't address my argument at all, because I've been very clear that the unambiguous stabilizing effect of NATO is post Cold War. The Cold War era Saw the blocs regularly fighting proxy wars to avoid direct conflict. It was an extension of the alliance system of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Vietnam is relevant because it is an example of pre-NATO conflict where a nation had the opportunity to turn to another bloc for help, and drive out the invaders.

By pointing out how badly Vietnam fared under the prior systems, you once again make my point for me. Thanks.

You really place no value on people's sovereignity, right?

So... Iraq is an example of why the single superpower alliance system is bad because it didn't become a proxy war like Vietnam or Korea or most of Central America.

Yes, because it was simply rolled over and turned into a bloodbath without any good reason. It could not defend its sovereignity. Instead it was just turned into breeding grounds for ISIS.

But more than that, if you think that the involvement of an additional great power on the opposite side of Iraq would have improved the outcome, that...aybe you're saying it never would have happened with a multiple alliance system, but you can't be dumb enough to think shit like that wouldn't happen, just with an additional wrinkle that fuels the fire even more.

Of course it could have happened. The point is, the smaller nation could use someone else's help to stand their ground. And of course as I found above, you place no value on people's sovereignity and ability to defend themselves from random motherfuckers across half the world coming into their nation like it's their god damn house.

But not, again, the metric of the number of people killed in warfare per capita. Or the number of people among the global poor. Or any metric you can actually, you know, measure. But it certainly feels worse if you have a certain philosophical position.

From your own link:

There are several outliers (WWII, Thirty Years War), but you simply can't extrapolate from such a short term. If we'd be talking in the year 2000, you would use that same graph to argue that all war and all violence will soon come to an end under the global benevolent NATO, as the upwards spike due to Iraq and the Middle East exploding - where, by the way, the bodycounts are far from finished - was not yet there.

Unless you're calculating "likelihood of being fucked over by them" by "whether some guy who happens to believe the West is wrong no matter what they do, and happy to change his argument depending on how full of shit everyone else realizes he actually is, believes they have a higher chance of being fucked over" and not "whether they actually get fucked over at a higher rate by real measures". It's cool, though. I look forward to you explaining that you never actually made the argument that the likelihood of being fucked over by the great powers is increased and accusing me of strawmanning you in reply. Your goalposts are basically on wheels.

No. The intensity and frequency of armed conflicts has been rising:


The number of deaths has been declining (especially after WWII and the development of nukes).

Also the number of internally displaced populations and refugees is hitting an all time high:

Perhaps these people are also giving their share to the reduction of non-combatant casualties by fleeing the warzones. But it does not do much to explain the benefits of said conflicts for them.

And frankly, I'm being generous by assuming that your statement "But it is related to the economy alone" isn't a contention that the economic benefits of the bloc aren't related to its broader geopolitical stabilizing effect.

This shit sounds right like Nial Fergusson's Pax Britannia apologism. Of course economic power and political stability are related. But the stability of what structure? You place no value on national sovereignity and independence? I place no value on your fucking First World Empire. Fuck it.

Only if you're ideologically predisposed to see all of history at all zoom levels as a zero-sum continuation of one guy's interpretation of 19th-century class struggle where the rich entities are all trying to keep down the poor just because they're poor.

I'm not predisposed. I've seen how the rich fuck everyone over. So I don't need to even "see all of history" like that. Just a bit of critical thinking helps with dispelling the pro-rich bullshit that I'm sick of hearing from every corner.

Without a null case, there's really no way to be sure, is there? It would certainly be necessary for that to be true in order to justify your argument, such as you have one. And there is some truth to the fact that nuclear deterrence is a major component of the alliance that has a pro-stability effect.

I must say that you should only observe the relations between non-nuclear states as a small-scale model. Saudi Arabia used mercenaries to instigate a bloodbath in North Africa and flat out bombed the hell out of Yemen. Iran used Shia militias to fight in Syria and expand influence in Iraq. Boots on the ground, real war, real casualties. No nukes - and this goes on and on.

But just two nuclear-armed blocs in a game of deterrence resulted in higher combat casualties than we experience currently and at least two separate instances where either momentarily-heightened tensions or normal tensions combined with incompetence nearly broke nuclear deterrence (along with the world).

The two/three blocs had their moments of relative peacefulness, too, when the non-combatant deaths were at a similar level compared to now (the end of Chinese civil war, 1950s):

If there were three or more rival blocs of equal strength all armed with nukes, I have no doubt we'd be debating the relative merits of the smoking irradiated crater method of enforcing geopolitical stability.

I have no idea why you need to strawman another argument. Perhaps it is the weakness of your understanding?

That there hasn't been a near-nuclear war since the fall of the Soviet Union is a strong argument for the single superpower bloc stability theory.

How do you know that there hasn't been a near-nuclear war? Do you think that all incidents that occur with Early Warning detection systems, with bombers on patrols and nuclear submarines get reported? Get real. There hasn't been a period of high tensions before 2014 - hey, if it weren't for the last 3 years, you'd be going on full retard and claiming that even tensions between Russia and the US two prime nuclear powers, have never happened after 1991. Except history has now proven you wrong and the tensions are there again. So once again, stop acting like you're at the end of fucking history and shove your Fucku-yama back where it belongs.

And the upswing is not over yet. There was a glaring spike in violence after 2010:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... stan-yemen

If we take into account the entirety of 2011-2017, I think some graphs are in severe need of updating.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, I'm going to be honest, I have limited inclination to wade into this particular tangle of quote spaghetti, but I'd like to know your opinion on two observations:

1) Some of your graph(s) count the number of armed conflicts or the number of wars. There are a lot more nation-states in the world than there were in 1945. And many of the nominally independent states of that time were in fact puppets of some larger entity (especially in the Middle East). The number of possible interactions between members of a group is proportionate to the square of the size of the group. Therefore, If you double the number of countries in the world without doing anything to increase the likelihood that two randomly selected countries will go to war... You will quadruple the number of wars.

2) Some of your graph(s) discuss the increased numbers of displaced persons and refugees resulting from modern wars. However, the world population has more than tripled since the end of the Second World War. And the availability of modern transportation makes it far more practical for people to flee a war zone entirely. People who would have been forced to stay in or near their own homes in a war fought in 1917 can now cross international borders for the price of a bribed truck driver, in other words. Wouldn't you expect these factors to increase the number of refugees in the world, regardless of any other factors, even if war did not become more common at all?

[K. A. Pital]

Wouldn't you expect these factors to increase the number of refugees in the world, regardless of any other factors, even if war did not become more common at all?

Yes, I would - that is why I mentioned this as a reasonable explanation for the decreased bodycount despite rising frequency of conflicts.

Therefore, If you double the number of countries in the world without doing anything to increase the likelihood that two randomly selected countries will go to war... You will quadruple the number of wars.

Very much so, but the rapid increase in the number of countries is also a consequence of the political failure of imperial models. Empires crumble. Lots of nations form on the remains, and these nations often go to war with each other - partly due to their own missteps, party due to malicious intent of the previous administration. Over the last decades, concerning the point above, NATO has helped to fragment some countries into a great number of smaller countries or non-state entities. In fact, a lot of NATO interventions ended up practically destroying single nations and having roving bands of marauders in their place. Very common pattern. "Salafist principality", all that.